Twenty-Eight Cases of Wine
District Court, S.D. New York
This was a motion for a new trial on the ground of alleged misdirection by the court to the jury. [Case tried Dec. 3Ó, 1867.] * The case was .a libel of information on a 'seizure for fraudulent undervaluation in the invoice of twenty-eight casks of wine, imported in the ship Emma, from Rotterdam [shipped at Rotterdam October 24, 1864, and invoiced at Markhammer September 26, 1864]. 2 No entry or invoice was put in evidence.
Read the full summary
This was a motion for a new trial on the ground of alleged misdirection by the court to the jury. [Case tried Dec. 3Ó, 1867.] * The case was .a libel of information on a 'seizure for fraudulent undervaluation in the invoice of twenty-eight casks of wine, imported in the ship Emma, from Rotterdam [shipped at Rotterdam October 24, 1864, and invoiced at Markhammer September 26, 1864]. 2 No entry or invoice was put in evidence. It appeared that two papers, purporting to be an entry and an invoice in the case,' had been in the possession of the district attorney. but had disappeared, and, on…
1Opinion of the Court
BLATCHFORD, District Judge.
By the revenue laws, it is necessary that an invoice should be presented to the collector át the time of entry. In this case, an. invoice was found in the possession of the custom house, and, although it was not produced, its loss and contents were proved. The fact that the officials had an invoice of the goods might not, 6f itself have been sufficient evidence on which to presume an entry, even though an appraisement of the goods had been shown. For an appraisement may be had as well of goods which are not entered or invoiced, as of those which are. But no…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Earle v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1896
- Phil. B. Bekeart Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1944
- Florea & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1945
- Hansen v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1939